PDA

View Full Version : On the topic that is me...



DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 04:06 PM
So recently some people have been being irritated at my "self-righteousness" and have ask "why is he such a dick?"

Now, I can understand where you are coming from when you ask this question or make this statement, but the thing is I am no more of you than to maintain a basic standard of intelligence.

When you ask a question that is asked, not once, but more than several times and even have a sticky with it, I think you should have enough intelligence to find this without having to waste time or space making a topic. If you can not then you should kicked in the head till you can. I am asking no more of you than to display that you have a higher intelligence than a 5 year old, which most of you are older than.

But Durakken don't you think you should be at least a little civil? No. You are insulting mine and other people by asking a question that we have already answered. You are asking us to waste more of our time so that you don't have to do a basic thing. You are not being civil in your actions and so I will not be in my response.

What about those who are slow? Well, you know it takes the same skills to find this website and it does to find a topic on it. If you have a problem understanding something within that topic then by all means ask upon that point, but not for "where" the topic is or anything that is clearly explained in the topic. There is a difference between needing someone to more deeply or more simply explain something and just asking the same thing again.

I am not mean, cruel, self-righteous, or any other thing that most people say. I am simply holding you to a standard that the education system, your parents, or culture have not for some odd reason.

so, how do you escape being berated by me?
#1. If you have something to say back it up or shut it.
#2. If you have something to ask, ask the search button it first.
#3. Actually read what is said and not skim it if you are going to reply.
#4. Give me pizza >.> and Rock & Rye pop.

Follow these rules, which are basic common decency of forum rules...I'm not asking much and I think those who don't hold you to these standards are doing you a much greater disservice that I ever do by being mean to you.

Tay
Apr 26, 2007, 04:19 PM
....k.

Zantra
Apr 26, 2007, 04:20 PM
So, do what you say, and not what you do? No thanks.

Dead Horse Society, here we come!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zantra on 2007-04-26 14:24 ]</font>

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 04:26 PM
On 2007-04-26 14:20, Zantra wrote:
So, do what you say, and not what you do? No thanks.



I explained myself very clearly and you still are drawing things that are not there.

I never made that statement or anything like it.

VioletSkye
Apr 26, 2007, 04:28 PM
This should be in Rants, and so it shall be. **Waves magical wand**

Sinue_v2
Apr 26, 2007, 04:51 PM
I think you should have enough intelligence to find this without having to waste time or space making a topic. If you can not then you should kicked in the head till you can.

So says the man who can't figure out which forum his triade should go in...


This should be in Rants, and so it shall be.

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 05:07 PM
rant
1. to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave:

This is neither of those,
therefor
This is not a rant.

This is, however, an explanation.

PSOW has no coherence of what goes where if you pay attention and as such anything can go just about anywhere and you can still be wrong about where it should be.

Sinue_v2
Apr 26, 2007, 05:11 PM
If that's the case, then as "a man of intelligence", you should have known that this "explantion" would have been moved anyhow (either by being a rant, being mistaken for a rant, or inciting rants) and posted it in the appropriate forum.

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 05:20 PM
I post in the forum that is correct according to definition, not according to the preceding incapability of those to reply in a manor that is right and I do not control the actions of mods and how they decide to do things.

Just because I speak on something that may incite violence does not mean that I should be punished for not seeing that it will incite violence, nor should I not say it due to it inciting violence. It would be wrong to do so.

DikkyRay
Apr 26, 2007, 05:31 PM
rants? This should be in FKL

Sinue_v2
Apr 26, 2007, 05:41 PM
Just because I speak on something that may incite violence does not mean that I should be punished for not seeing that it will incite violence

There's actually many laws (in America at least) that prohibit the inciting of riots, even if the one who incites the violence took no part in the violence themselves.

There's a similar rule among many forums, in which they reguard it as flame baiting. Well spoken flamebaiting in this case, but flamebaiting none the less.

You knew some people had a problem with you, and you chose to address them at large and promptly placed yourself atop a high and mighty "intellectual" pillar, which you knew they would try to knock you off of.

Common sence, good judgement, and intelligence should go hand in hand with each other, not have one sacrificed upon the altar of another.

A little bit of humble pie goes a long way as well.


rants? This should be in FKL

Aye, epic drama lulz shall soon ensue...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sinue_v2 on 2007-04-26 15:42 ]</font>

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 05:55 PM
and those laws are for those that incite it through speech purposefully. If the result of a speech is violence then the inciter is not at fault. Unless you are saying, Jesus, God, Mohamed, Budah, and any other number of deities all should be placed in jail for the stupidity of their followers.

As far as if knowing that people will flame me, well this just brings it to one point and allows it to be worked out all that more rapidly. This also gets things out in the open rather than behind peoples' backs. As far as I cat tell this has been said in a party and people were directed here to look for themselves. So in a sense I am stemming the fire rather than letting it become a raging inferno which will ultimately lead to less flaming.

Also by having an open forum to "flame" me. I can address any issue that a person may have with me directly, rather than having to hear it second hand and then have to deal with it second handedly.

Sinue_v2
Apr 26, 2007, 06:32 PM
Jesus, God, Mohamed, Budah, and any other number of deities all should be placed in jail for the stupidity of their followers.

Well, as for the point of Jesus - they did. They imprisoned and then crucified him, remember? As for Buddah, I can't recall any notable murders in his name, nor crusades, though I could be wrong. Mohammad was a military leader as well as a prophet who was hunted for much of his life after rejecting numerous offers of peace by the economic leaders of Mecca (in exchange for giving up his preaching). God... well there's a lot of evidence that suggests that the Israelite slaves sacked the city of Egypt after the Pharoh set them free. Moses, apperantly, either condoned these actions or looked the other way. Hence, why Pharoh sent his men out to slaughter the Isrielites - not out of spite, but revenge.


As far as if knowing that people will flame me, well this just brings it to one point and allows it to be worked out all that more rapidly. This also gets things out in the open rather than behind peoples' backs.

So that justifies posting flamebait in Off-Topic?


Also by having an open forum to "flame" me. I can address any issue that a person may have with me directly, rather than having to hear it second hand and then have to deal with it second handedly.

That's an after-the-fact point. Hindsight, and not really valid. If it wasn't, and that was the purpose of your thread to begin with, then you should have known well enough to place it in rants.

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 07:12 PM
nope, it still doesn't belong in rants as a flame is not a rant. and just because I can predict a reaction doesn't mean that it will happen. In fact only you are posting on this for the most part and you're not flaming so you're wrong by your own merit.

PJ
Apr 26, 2007, 07:22 PM
On 2007-04-25 14:37, PJ wrote:
I like how Durraken is the expert on every subject, and everything sucks.

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 07:30 PM
I'm no expert, just more informed than most.

btw, where's that from?

Siertes
Apr 26, 2007, 07:34 PM
The only thing that irritates me about you Durakken is that this confrontational nature of yours seems pretty recent. I don't recall seeing you post the way you do now prior to about a month ago. It almost seems fake, solely for the purpose of making yourself more "famous" or well known (which appears to be working).

Of course I've only been here since January, so maybe you've always been like this.

Sinue_v2
Apr 26, 2007, 07:37 PM
How am I wrong? I wasn't refering to myself flaming you, but other flames that likely will ensue. PJ's being one of them.

Then again, I might have derailed your topic to the point where it's more of a joke than anything else (as if it wasn't already) and not taken even semi-seriously by anyone.

Reguardless, derailed flamebait is still flamebait.

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 07:50 PM
On 2007-04-26 17:37, Sinue_v2 wrote:
Then again, I might have derailed your topic to the point where it's more of a joke than anything else (as if it wasn't already) and not taken even semi-seriously by anyone



Maybe, beats me... I just said that there are no flames thus far and so that makes it wrong currently, not that it will be wrong in the future.

Siertes... It may be just one of my natural "you annoy me" levels that shifts fairly frequently. It could also be due to having to write 4 papers in the next 2 weeks. I'm more keen on picking the first one as I go from annoyed to depressed to content to psychohappy to stoic over the course of time a relatively lengthy intervals.

Of course it could be that there are just a larger amount of idiots that are on influx >.> which I'm more likely to say is the root of this as right now I'm pretty content with the world. Though... that's prolly a good sign as that means there may be more new players ^.^

TorterraEndor
Apr 26, 2007, 07:55 PM
What I got from the original post is, you don't like people asking dumb questions.

You're not paying for the bandwith, you aren't a mod who needs to tell them to look for the answer or lock the topic, why let it bother you? It takes less effort to hit backspace then to act like a dick.

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 08:08 PM
Who's worse? The one that sees something wrong and does nothing or the person that does the thing wrong?

By not speaking out against it you are letting it continue and saying it is alright with you for that wrong to persist. And letting such persistences degrades the community, society, culture, state, nation, race, species, planet, life in general... Not correcting someone that is simply not meating standards of society in general effects more than just this small community. It extends out into the rest of the internet and into the real world even though some of you may deny it.

Weeaboolits
Apr 26, 2007, 08:13 PM
On the topic that is me...Nice title. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

Also (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=condescending).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ronin_Cooper on 2007-04-26 18:32 ]</font>

Solstis
Apr 26, 2007, 08:43 PM
On 2007-04-26 18:08, DurakkenX wrote:
Who's worse? The one that sees something wrong and does nothing or the person that does the thing wrong?

By not speaking out against it you are letting it continue and saying it is alright with you for that wrong to persist. And letting such persistences degrades the community, society, culture, state, nation, race, species, planet, life in general... Not correcting someone that is simply not meating standards of society in general effects more than just this small community. It extends out into the rest of the internet and into the real world even though some of you may deny it.



Burn him at the steak!

astuarlen
Apr 26, 2007, 09:05 PM
On 2007-04-26 18:43, Solstis wrote:

On 2007-04-26 18:08, DurakkenX wrote:
Who's worse? The one that sees something wrong and does nothing or the person that does the thing wrong?

By not speaking out against it you are letting it continue and saying it is alright with you for that wrong to persist. And letting such persistences degrades the community, society, culture, state, nation, race, species, planet, life in general... Not correcting someone that is simply not meating standards of society in general effects more than just this small community. It extends out into the rest of the internet and into the real world even though some of you may deny it.



Burn him at the steak!



We're going to need a mighty big bottle of A1 sauce for this job.

FOAtHeart
Apr 26, 2007, 09:16 PM
On 2007-04-26 18:08, DurakkenX wrote:
Who's worse? The one that sees something wrong and does nothing or the person that does the thing wrong?

By not speaking out against it you are letting it continue and saying it is alright with you for that wrong to persist. And letting such persistences degrades the community, society, culture, state, nation, race, species, planet, life in general... Not correcting someone that is simply not meating standards of society in general effects more than just this small community. It extends out into the rest of the internet and into the real world even though some of you may deny it.



Just thought I'd chime in and say that the above is all well and good, except that you are not actually changing anything or anyone by "correcting" them. The only purpose that serves is to inflate your own ego, and you've already done enough of that, certainly.

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 09:28 PM
So you think...

Weeaboolits
Apr 26, 2007, 09:51 PM
Yeah, you oft do come off as condescending, Durakken.

Sinue_v2
Apr 26, 2007, 09:53 PM
Maybe, beats me... I just said that there are no flames thus far and so that makes it wrong currently, not that it will be wrong in the future.

Common sence should tell you that it will most likely happen, reguardless of weither it's currently happening or not. The better angels of our nature do not post on the interweb.

CupOfCoffee
Apr 26, 2007, 10:11 PM
I can't really put my finger on why Durakken bugs me. I guess it is just the condescending tone of his posts. All the time I'll be boredly reading through a thread and get to a really self-important, "this is how it is and nobody can tell me otherwise because I'm completely, unabashedly, unequivocally right" type post, and look over and, of course, it's by Durakken. I usually just sigh and read on, not exactly bothered or offended enough to speak up about it. But I guess since this thread's here and the question has already been posed...

Yeah, he's a little bit annoying. If this were anywhere but a supposedly laid-back video game internet message board, I don't think it would bother me in the slightest.

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 10:25 PM
To take the attitude that one is superior to another...You are saying that I view myself as superior to others?

I have to say that I don't agree and considering that I am the only one that knows my views I must be right http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Basically you are saying though that me holding people up to an expectation of a standard is too much for this community to handle?

I would say that that is a problem simply because you are saying it is ok to lower the standards that you hold people to and this is the fundamental problem with education. Little Billy can't pass the test so the test must have something wrong with it, not the teacher, or billy, or his parents. Let's make it easier on you.

You know what happens when we make things easier? People get weaker, dumber and lazier. I don't know about you but I do not want an Idiocracy.

Weeaboolits
Apr 26, 2007, 10:29 PM
con·de·scend (kŏn'dĭ-sěnd') Pronunciation Key
intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends

1. To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself. See Synonyms at stoop1.
2. To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.

TorterraEndor
Apr 26, 2007, 10:30 PM
I think I want to retract my last post, mostly because me replying again makes me a hypocrite.

And I want to say, it doesn't seem to bug you that people are being "dumb and lazy" so much as you want it to be all about you.

FOAtHeart And CupOfCoffee worded it way better than I ever could.

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 10:49 PM
On 2007-04-26 20:29, Ronin_Cooper wrote:
con·de·scend
intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends

1. To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself. See Synonyms at stoop1.
2. To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.



yes, and that means that I myself have to view you as inferior.

I expect you to know, understand, and be able to do basic things.

That is not me thinking you are inferior to me but rather equal to me and YOU are simply not meeting that.

If you can not meet that standard of equality then you must be inferior don't you think? Therefor if you are inferior and I am superior because you are not meeting me when I talk to you equally then I would sound condescending to you now wouldn't I?

Also according to that
#1 meaning = If I am superior and you are inferior then I should come down to your level so that you may understand. This I do not do because I expect you to be on a higher level than you are.

#2 meaning = It's invalid as the key word is used to mean the same meaning. It's a synonym and a bad definition.

So either way I am not condescending, nor am I patronizing in any sense of the words.

You could use the last definition as an argument which is "Displaying a patronizingly superior attitude" But you see as pointed out in the previous statements I am not acting superior. You are acting inferior. I act the same no matter whether you are equal, above, or below me. Therefor I am not condescending ^.^

Using this logic, I have proven my case against me being condescending, but more than likely someone will say no you haven't, present a case full of fallacies and then I will reply in such a way that it will seem to prove what I said as false, but in truth I will most likely just give up explaining...^.^

astuarlen
Apr 26, 2007, 10:54 PM
I figure he's just some species of troll. Or maybe an ogre. I always get those guys messed up. So far I've crossed kobold and gnome off my list, though.

DurakkenX
Apr 26, 2007, 11:00 PM
On 2007-04-26 20:54, astuarlen wrote:
I figure he's just some species of troll. Or maybe an ogre. I always get those guys messed up. So far I've crossed kobold and gnome off my list, though.



Me likes gold and womens if that helps ^.^

Weeaboolits
Apr 26, 2007, 11:38 PM
condeˈscending adjective
giving the impression that one is superior
Example: a condescending mannerIs that better?

Sychosis
Apr 27, 2007, 12:10 AM
This is a joke topic, right?

Weeaboolits
Apr 27, 2007, 12:32 AM
Doesn't seem like it. :/

Thalui89
Apr 27, 2007, 05:00 AM
Damn ive got to love how people from this website like to shit stir ^.^'

Rainbowlemon
Apr 27, 2007, 05:41 AM
The fact that you've posted a lovely essay for every bad thing said about you, explaining why they're wrong, should be enough evidence in itself against your opinion. However, it's not, because of the way you are. My best friend used to be like you - You're funny, but the same time, indefinitely CORRECT, whether it be justified or not. You also like to speak the way I am now - in long, confusing sentences that use lots of complicated words. Except by saying that, you'll probably pick me up on the fact that I'm not using THAT complicated words.

In other circumstances, I'm pretty sure these posts might be classed as flame-baiting and removed, but seeing as we're posting in a topic called "On the topic that is me" where the creator, in complete disagreement with the title of his thread, refuses to believe that he holds himself atop a pillar above all others...I'm hoping this one will let slide.

The overwhelming majority of opinion should be an indication, lest you finally decide to listen to someone's advice. You're on a giant ego-trip, how's about planting 2 feet on the ground for a few days and seeing what it's like?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rainbowlemon on 2007-04-27 06:26 ]</font>

Thalui89
Apr 27, 2007, 10:19 AM
;O just thought i'd mention that society is not always correct =P

Kerschweiser
May 7, 2007, 08:48 PM
Normally I just troll Dur's posts to to see just how much of an ass he can make himself seem. While this post certainly applies to the trend, I can sympathize with where he's comming from. I actually hold people to a higher standard than he does. I'm just not so...blatantly obvious about it.

It IS irritating and frustrating to answer the same questions over and over again, but the inability to use a search function is not a lack of intelligence. It's a lack of self-reliance. Rather than seek an answer they wish for it to be handed to them. This I DO blame society for, because this generation's children are being pampered far too much.

Curve the improvement of our species! Seek the answers you need! ...on your own for a change. =P


And there in that post I completely changed the tone of the OP by turning it into a plea instead of a demand.

Solstis
May 7, 2007, 10:14 PM
-100 Solly Points for not responding to the steak comment, minus another 100 for having an ugly avatar picture.

Durakken? Durak ken? Durable Ken? This is not Street Fighter! -100 for a total of -300 Solly Points.

+25 to Astuarlen.

Skuda
May 7, 2007, 10:21 PM
This thread amuses me. :3

I don't think Durakken would be half bad if he wasn't so arrogant and hot tempered.

I've seen posts he's made where he has been helpful, and has given out valid points. But on the other side of the coin, I have also seen posts where he has antagonized and flamed for no real purpose.

DurakkenX
May 8, 2007, 03:43 AM
On 2007-05-07 20:21, Skuda wrote:
This thread amuses me. :3

I don't think Durakken would be half bad if he wasn't so arrogant and hot tempered.

I have also seen posts where he has antagonized and flamed for no real purpose.



I do have a temper... it's not my fault.

And I do have a reason...they annoy me. That is more than enough of a reason in most cultures to tell someone to correct themselves.

Kerschweiser
May 8, 2007, 04:06 AM
Having a temper is not your fault, no. Letting it get out of control and allowing it to affect others is.

There is a severe difference in impact between telling someone to correct themselves and calling them stupid in the process or asking them to correct thier actions in accordance to common sense. The former will more often than not get you blown off, ignored, or on the intarwebs, flammed.

DurakkenX
May 8, 2007, 04:25 AM
Actually most of the things I say are just taken the wrong way and taken as if i were speaking snidely when really i just answer straight out and monotone. It has nothing to do with a temper. It has everything to do with most people ignoring what is said and how it is said and impressing false reactions to what they aren't reading and understanding clearly.

Skuda
May 8, 2007, 06:31 AM
If so many people are taking what you say the wrong way so often, then could the way you're saying be the problem? There's a difference between telling it like it is seeming like a jerk and telling it like it is and seeming intelligent. That sir, is called tact.

Kerschweiser
May 8, 2007, 06:44 AM
On 2007-05-08 02:25, DurakkenX wrote:
Actually most of the things I say are just taken the wrong way and taken as if i were speaking snidely when really i just answer straight out and monotone. It has nothing to do with a temper. It has everything to do with most people ignoring what is said and how it is said and impressing false reactions to what they aren't reading and understanding clearly.



Have you...lost your mind? Your post isn't helping your case. It's adding to the general consensus that you are one collosal prick. It doesn't matter what the tone of your message is conveyed in. When the overtone is 'I know I'm right so everyone else must be wrong' you are NEVER going to win anyone over. People are understanding that overtone and ignoring you because of it.

Mystil
May 8, 2007, 08:23 AM
Maybe I haven't read all his posts like you all but this is first time I've read this side of him. The other times were informative posts so I never saw him as a problem @_@.

So.. DurakkenX, do not be so uptight about stuff. Everyone is different, I know it's hard but it doesn't do a person any good to get mad over such trivial details

Jehosaphaty
May 8, 2007, 09:03 AM
This shithole of a thread rivals the biggest cry for attention I've ever seen on these boards.

HAYABUSA-FMW-
May 8, 2007, 09:10 AM
On 2007-05-08 07:03, Jehosaphaty wrote:
This shithole of a thread rivals the biggest cry for attention I've ever seen on these boards.


Is it worse than Astronomy class? (don't mean your rant was bad compared to this or even closely related by reason, meant to connect comparing two "bads" so to speak, in this topic -> to the unnecessary difficulty of your class)

My Astronomy class was quite a breeze due to open notes/open book tests and one of the best teachers around. His Astronomy Lab was the hard portion of the backend/supllementary/optional part of the course from what he showed from that class.

Sorry, forgot to reply to your topic back when and this topic is on a destructive enough path that I probably wouldn't be able to change much if I tried with a reply. Why did this get bumped?, the "mystery" was solved.

Also eat 101 is probably known as Nutrition, which is not as much of a cakewalk as it sounds!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HAYABUSA-FMW- on 2007-05-08 08:03 ]</font>

Jehosaphaty
May 8, 2007, 10:08 AM
[b]On 2007-05-08 07:10, HAYABUSA-FMW-
Is it worse than Astronomy class? (don't mean your rant was bad compared to this or even closely related by reason, meant to connect comparing two "bads" so to speak, in this topic -> to the unnecessary difficulty of your class)

My Astronomy class was quite a breeze due to open notes/open book tests and one of the best teachers around. His Astronomy Lab was the hard portion of the backend/supllementary/optional part of the course from what he showed from that class.


Hmm...I would probably say they are closely related bads, if not more closely related in annoy-ment factor. I am jealous of your open book tests, but probably not so much for those labs. Our labs are unbelievably easy when compared to the two tests that define the grade.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jehosaphaty on 2007-05-08 08:08 ]</font>

amtalx
May 8, 2007, 10:57 AM
On 2007-05-08 02:25, DurakkenX wrote:
Actually most of the things I say are just taken the wrong way and taken as if i were speaking snidely when really i just answer straight out and monotone. It has nothing to do with a temper. It has everything to do with most people ignoring what is said and how it is said and impressing false reactions to what they aren't reading and understanding clearly.



And such is the trick of written communication. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif Part of mastering written communication is find a way to diffuse potentially inflammatory remarks. Personally, I think its one of the hardest things to do with short form writing. Ever get that email from your boss that sounds like hes ripping you a new one, when it was really just an FYI? Its similar to that. Just try to look at your posts from the opposite side and adjust your word choice a little. I think people may not get so upset about your views if you give it a shot.

DurakkenX
May 8, 2007, 01:09 PM
'I know I'm right so everyone else must be wrong'



If I know I am right it is most likely that someone who has an opposing view is wrong... that's basic logic.

Weeaboolits
May 8, 2007, 01:26 PM
On 2007-05-08 11:09, DurakkenX wrote:

'I know I'm right so everyone else must be wrong'If I know I am right it is most likely that someone who has an opposing view is wrong... that's basic logic. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif

http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_nono.gif

Kerschweiser
May 8, 2007, 02:12 PM
On 2007-05-08 11:09, DurakkenX wrote:


'I know I'm right so everyone else must be wrong'



If I know I am right it is most likely that someone who has an opposing view is wrong... that's basic logic.



Thanks for using my post out of context in some sort of logic game that you phail at. I'm pointing out the flaw in your method and you're totally ignoring it, just like others ignore your advice. This thread was flame bait, so little Dur here could get off to what he thinks is him winning a debate on him.

If you are the only one (or are of the extreeme minority) who knows you are right about, well, damn near anything that isn't personal or pre-established, your 'factual evidence' is an opinion. So now you're dictating opinions (views) right and wrong? That's why everyone who holds the opinion of you being a dick must be wrong?

Dig yourself deeper please. I'm readying the sandbags now.

DurakkenX
May 8, 2007, 02:32 PM
I back up my statements with facts or logic based on facts and while there are no true facts they are the generally accepted as fact facts that I use. I hardly ever state my opinion at any time. I argue the point that according to facts and logic is right.

Solstis
May 8, 2007, 03:10 PM
On 2007-05-08 12:32, DurakkenX wrote:
I back up my statements with facts or logic based on facts and while there are no true facts they are the generally accepted as fact facts that I use. I hardly ever state my opinion at any time. I argue the point that according to facts and logic is right.



-100 Solly Points for bad grammar.

*Grumble*

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2007-05-08 13:23 ]</font>

Weeaboolits
May 8, 2007, 03:26 PM
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Ronin_Cooper/Forum/overhead.png

DurakkenX
May 8, 2007, 03:28 PM
The only thing missing are a few commas... Everything else is completely right.

'"generally accepted as facts" facts' is classifying a type of fact and is in correct english accept maybe, possibly need to be quoted or dashed i don't know, don't really care.

For someone trying to correct someone in grammar you sure do have limited understanding of languages.

Also, my screen name, that you decided to kill a few posts a go for no reason, has nothing to do with street fighter. Dragon converted to original spelling = Drakken + u = Durakken. It's not hard to get.

Solstis
May 8, 2007, 03:37 PM
On 2007-05-08 13:28, DurakkenX wrote:
The only thing missing are a few commas... Everything else is completely right.

'"generally accepted as facts" facts' is classifying a type of fact and is in correct english accept maybe, possibly need to be quoted or dashed i don't know, don't really care.

For someone trying to correct someone in grammar you sure do have limited understanding of languages.

Also, my screen name, that you decided to kill a few posts a go for no reason, has nothing to do with street fighter. Dragon converted to original spelling = Drakken + u = Durakken. It's not hard to get.



You typed the word "fact" 6 times in your last post. 6. Do not pass off repetition as a well worded argument!

I do not need to know the ancient origins of the word Dragon to understand that you no talk good on internet, you try sound smart but sound stupid.

DurakkenX
May 8, 2007, 03:43 PM
Using the same word multiple times does not make statements less relevant. If it did most things said that are major historical events are irrelevant.

Solstis
May 8, 2007, 03:49 PM
On 2007-05-08 13:43, DurakkenX wrote:
Using the same word multiple times does not make statements less relevant. If it did most things said that are major historical events are irrelevant.



Major historical events are irrelevant. The American Revolution did not occur because a bunch of dudes tossed out some tea. The Proclamation of 1769 didn't stop American settlers from crossing the borders. There was no Plymouth Rock.

Homosexuals were left behind in Nazi prison camps (after the Allied soldiers swept through) because of a German law. History is important, historical events are not.

Did I say Allied? Isn't that from Command and Conquer: Red Alert? Whatever.

Plymouth, not Plymoth.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2007-05-08 13:49 ]</font>

Weeaboolits
May 8, 2007, 03:52 PM
I think Solly wants you to diversify your vocabulary, it just doesn't sound good if you keep repeating the same word!

And as Solly just explained, or at least what I got from it, it's the events themselves that are relevent, not the record of them.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e288/leoncitodanais/GIF/Air/Air1.gif

DurakkenX
May 8, 2007, 03:58 PM
I chose the wording because it is the best wording.

Apparently, I'm too wordy except when I use the word fact.

Weeaboolits
May 8, 2007, 04:03 PM
On 2007-05-08 13:58, DurakkenX wrote:
I chose the wording because it is the best wording.

Apparently, I'm too wordy except when I use the word fact. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif

astuarlen
May 8, 2007, 04:44 PM
Ronin, is that some Puyo I sees?

http://img.clubic.com/photo/00042137.jpg

Yes, n-Gage. I thought it was appropriate for this thread.

Edit: refering to this:
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Ronin_Cooper/Forum/overhead.png

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astuarlen on 2007-05-08 14:46 ]</font>

Solstis
May 8, 2007, 05:07 PM
On 2007-05-08 13:58, DurakkenX wrote:
I chose the wording because it is the best wording.

Apparently, I'm too wordy except when I use the word fact.



I chose the wording because it was the most appropriate.

I chose the wording because I wanted to.

-Pro-Tip: Repeating words makes you sound like you have a limited vocabulary.

And, Ronin, that was basically it, but the nice, happy version.

Man, "makes you sound like you" is an example of bad word choice. Bad English major, bad!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2007-05-08 15:08 ]</font>

PhotonDrop
May 8, 2007, 05:07 PM
On 2007-05-08 14:44, astuarlen wrote:

Yes, n-Gage. I thought it was appropriate for this thread.



I see what you did there!

Sinue_v2
May 8, 2007, 05:24 PM
Pro-Tip: Repeating words makes you sound like you have a limited vocabulary.

Actually it's counter-productive to his self described "method", as it conveys a sence of trying to get his point across through the brute force of repetition rather than by providing valid and well thought out arguments.

Wow... long sentence.

Aisha_Clan-Clan
May 8, 2007, 05:37 PM
On 2007-05-08 15:07, PhotonDrop wrote:

On 2007-05-08 14:44, astuarlen wrote:

Yes, n-Gage. I thought it was appropriate for this thread.


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/Aisha_Clan_Clan_Prower/Message%20Board%20pics/iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg

Weeaboolits
May 8, 2007, 06:26 PM
On 2007-05-08 14:44, astuarlen wrote:
Ronin, is that some Puyo I sees?

http://img.clubic.com/photo/00042137.jpg

Yes, n-Gage. I thought it was appropriate for this thread.

Edit: refering to this:
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Ronin_Cooper/Forum/overhead.png

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: astuarlen on 2007-05-08 14:46 ]</font>
Perhaps.

PhotonDrop
May 8, 2007, 06:30 PM
On 2007-05-08 15:37, Aisha_Clan-Clan wrote:

On 2007-05-08 15:07, PhotonDrop wrote:

On 2007-05-08 14:44, astuarlen wrote:

Yes, n-Gage. I thought it was appropriate for this thread.


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/Aisha_Clan_Clan_Prower/Message%20Board%20pics/iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg




Thank you http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Though Fry's expression isn't quite what I had in mind.

Aisha_Clan-Clan
May 8, 2007, 06:56 PM
Aw. Well, I found it some place. Anyway, I like it that way. =~.^=

DurakkenX
May 8, 2007, 06:59 PM
See, here's thing, I speak with people that can't comprehend most of what I say because of a large array of vocabulary so I limit my usage in the hopes that they can understand more clearly instead of having to figure out what I'm saying just because I want to use synonyms.

Those rules of changing words has nothing to do with much else other than keeping people interested, not for understandability. The reason for changing during essays and such is simply because they have to read 20-30 essays and need some way to keep them awake other than coffee.

omegapirate2k
May 8, 2007, 07:00 PM
On 2007-05-08 16:30, PhotonDrop wrote:

On 2007-05-08 15:37, Aisha_Clan-Clan wrote:

On 2007-05-08 15:07, PhotonDrop wrote:

On 2007-05-08 14:44, astuarlen wrote:

Yes, n-Gage. I thought it was appropriate for this thread.


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y66/Aisha_Clan_Clan_Prower/Message%20Board%20pics/iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg




Thank you http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Though Fry's expression isn't quite what I had in mind.



So, its clear you didn't see what you did there.

omegapirate2k
May 8, 2007, 07:02 PM
EDIT: Browser fucked up, please delete this post

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: omegapirate2k on 2007-05-08 17:03 ]</font>

Kerschweiser
May 8, 2007, 09:04 PM
Working on the issue at hand (Dur is a dickhead) a contributing problem is your complete refusal to consider that you could indeed be wrong about something. Now, in all fairness, since that statement can't be denied without making me look right, I have supplied the following scenarios re-enacted. Names have been changed for my amusement. Dialogue has been revised to reduce long-windedness.
-----------------------------------------------------

Collaborative Persona: You take a condescending tone with people.

Dur: No I don't. I just have standerds for the people I interact with. Some of you don't meet them...
-----------------------------------------------------
Bouncy: You have a funny name.

Dur: No, it's just an archaic/out-dated spelling of dragon that I'm going to expect you to understand without my telling you.
-----------------------------------------------------
Dur: Pardon me while I dumben my words down so that everyone can understand and then bring emphasis to how dumb people are when questions arise.
-----------------------------------------------------

These are how people are understanding and interpreting you. Whether or not this is actually what you were trying to convey is irrelevant so long as you maintain that you are uncontestably correct with your methods, and that everyone else is wrong for thinking the way they do.

Attitudes like that end marriages and veto bills.

DurakkenX
May 8, 2007, 09:22 PM
those are really bad examples...

#1 if you don't meet basic human standards that's pathetic... but then again most people don't meet them for some reason... and then call the person who does or tries to a dick for calling them on it

#2 that's just you misunderstanding both parties and neither said it was funny nor denied it was.

#3 See here's the thing...if I speak intelligently I'm a dick for being superior. If I speak so you can understand I'm a dick for making my words understandable...so either way it's a lose lose situation.


anyways i'd think that whoever posted on this thread again after noone had for a number of weeks is the true dick ^.^ but whatever works for ya'll we know how group mentality works.

-Shimarisu-
May 8, 2007, 09:42 PM
Durakken have you ever slept with a lady?

DurakkenX
May 8, 2007, 10:12 PM
Have you ever seen a Lady in america?

Obviously I haven't slept with a Lady...I'm not married so any woman that sleeps with me isn't a Lady now are they?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DurakkenX on 2007-05-08 20:14 ]</font>

Solstis
May 8, 2007, 10:16 PM
You can sleep with a Lady in the context of a relationship, y'know. Like, a long one.

What is a Lady? Does she know not to show her ankles? Does she wear a bodice? Does she, omg, vote?

VanHalen
May 8, 2007, 10:17 PM
On 2007-05-08 20:12, DurakkenX wrote:
Have you ever seen a Lady in america?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DurakkenX on 2007-05-08 20:14 ]</font>


Yes. Yes I have.

Kerschweiser
May 8, 2007, 10:17 PM
I find you irritating because your speech pattern and method of communication are a 95% match to a co-worker of mine that ironically everyone on my shift hates.

#1 Standards set by who? You? Sorry, but I'm not going to live according to anyone else's expectations, nor do I expect anyone else to.

#2 Granted I misunderstood the exchange, but anyone could have.

#3 Speaking intelligently and speaking in lame terms are fine so long as they're not accompanied by condecension, or what could be misinterpreted as such.

More than half a country can't be wrong, can it? The democratic party seems to disagree. And while I will admit to being an asshole on more than one occassion I am also capable of admitting when I'm in the wrong. In that capacity I appologize for reviving a dead thread, but the sign on the door says "Dead Horse Society." I intend to beat this one untill I see innards.

DizzyDi
May 8, 2007, 10:34 PM
On 2007-05-08 20:12, DurakkenX wrote:
Have you ever seen a Lady in america?

Obviously I haven't slept with a Lady...I'm not married so any woman that sleeps with me isn't a Lady now are they?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DurakkenX on 2007-05-08 20:14 ]</font>

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a299/MixMasterMark/FKL%20STUFF/niggaplzcat.jpg

-Shimarisu-
May 8, 2007, 10:38 PM
Durakken have you ever slept with a man?

DizzyDi
May 8, 2007, 10:41 PM
This thread is full of so much lol.

Skuda
May 8, 2007, 10:45 PM
Durraken, I'd hand you a shovel, but it appears that you're doing a fine job digging yourself even deeper by yourself.

Pretty much all I keep hearing is people saying that there's a possibility you could be wrong, and you're replying with a "nuh uh! You just don't understand me because I'm smarter than you." Holy shit, give it a rest. This thread was over a looooong time ago.

oh, by the way, *points a a large sign that reads "NEEDS MOAR TACT"*



Edit:


On 2007-05-08 20:41, DizzyDi wrote:
This thread is full of so much lol.




Couldn't agree more. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Skuda on 2007-05-08 20:47 ]</font>

astuarlen
May 8, 2007, 11:04 PM
NEEDS MOAR TACT


Tact is wacko. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif
Nowait, that's Sword Sord.
http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

Tact brings the wacko. All 666%.

http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_clown.gif for the Dizzle.

Nani-chan
May 8, 2007, 11:15 PM
On 2007-05-08 20:17, VanHalen wrote:

On 2007-05-08 20:12, DurakkenX wrote:
Have you ever seen a Lady in america?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DurakkenX on 2007-05-08 20:14 ]</font>


Yes. Yes I have.



Sister or mom doesn't count, unless it's incest.

VanHalen
May 8, 2007, 11:33 PM
On 2007-05-08 21:15, Nani-chan wrote:

On 2007-05-08 20:17, VanHalen wrote:

On 2007-05-08 20:12, DurakkenX wrote:
Have you ever seen a Lady in america?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DurakkenX on 2007-05-08 20:14 ]</font>


Yes. Yes I have.



Sister or mom doesn't count, unless it's incest.



I wasn't counting them XD.

DurakkenX
May 9, 2007, 08:30 AM
On 2007-05-08 20:38, -Shimarisu- wrote:
Durakken have you ever slept with a Lady?
Durakken have you ever slept with a man?


Is someone trying to flame by questioning whether or not I'm a virgin or gay? And here I thought being celibate till marriage was an honorable thing...

Rainbowlemon
May 9, 2007, 08:37 AM
It is, by people in 1850. There's a difference being "able" to sleep with a lady and sleeping with a lady, though.

"oh, by the way, *points a a large sign that reads "NEEDS MOAR TACT"* "

That made me laugh so much I nearly barfed. SRSLY!!

DurakkenX
May 9, 2007, 08:55 AM
Yeah because it's a lot safer and smarter now adays to sleep around?

I have reasons for remaining a virgin. None of which have to do with not being able to get a woman to sleep with me.

DizzyDi
May 9, 2007, 08:55 AM
On 2007-05-09 06:30, DurakkenX wrote:

On 2007-05-08 20:38, -Shimarisu- wrote:
Durakken have you ever slept with a Lady?
Durakken have you ever slept with a man?


Is someone trying to flame by questioning whether or not I'm a virgin or gay? And here I thought being celibate till marriage was an honorable thing...



It is, but you went so far as to insult anywoman that has premarital sex by saying that they are not ladies.

DurakkenX
May 9, 2007, 09:13 AM
According to what a Lady is in general they aren't and since America doesn't recognize royalty they aren't.

DizzyDi
May 9, 2007, 09:35 AM
On 2007-05-09 07:13, DurakkenX wrote:
According to what a Lady is in general they aren't and since America doesn't recognize royalty they aren't.





Being a lady has nothing to do with premarital sex.
Not everyone believes sex before marriage is wrong, hell not all ladies even believe in marriage.
I'm going to assume that you think maritial sex is right because you're Christian, or Catholic.
Well, not everyone follows that.
Really Durakken... You are so close-minded.
http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_nono.gif

Rainbowlemon
May 9, 2007, 09:36 AM
Hey, let's play a game. It's called 'Admit you're wrong'. Now I know some of you here are new to this game...*glare*...I'm sure you'll do fine if you concentrate.

1...2...3...EVERYONE, I'M WRONG!

Now, Durakken, you try. You can do it!


THAT was an example of a condescending post. But still...have you ever admitted you're completely wrong? I'm going to repeat what Kerschweiser said, so that you may read it again. After reading it, I recommend reading all the posts you have written in this thread, look at the definition of 'condescending' again, and try and put 2 and 2 together.

-----------------------------------------------------

Collaborative Persona: You take a condescending tone with people.

Dur: No I don't. I just have standerds for the people I interact with. Some of you don't meet them...
-----------------------------------------------------
Bouncy: You have a funny name.

Dur: No, it's just an archaic/out-dated spelling of dragon that I'm going to expect you to understand without my telling you.
-----------------------------------------------------
Dur: Pardon me while I dumben my words down so that everyone can understand and then bring emphasis to how dumb people are when questions arise.
-----------------------------------------------------

doubleEXP
May 9, 2007, 09:53 AM
How did I miss this? =P

Comedy GOLD, Jerry. Comedy GOLD! /Banya

Solstis
May 9, 2007, 11:55 AM
On 2007-05-09 06:55, DurakkenX wrote:
Yeah because it's a lot safer and smarter now adays to sleep around?

I have reasons for remaining a virgin. None of which have to do with not being able to get a woman to sleep with me.



Not saying that you have to be a slut or that you have to find one. If you're in a relationship for longer than a year, or a good stretch of months, but are hesitant about marriage, sleeping together is really not a bad thing.

We're not talking about casual sex. We're talking about being in a relationship.

Skuda
May 9, 2007, 12:15 PM
To Quote Dictionary.com:

la·dy /ˈleɪdi/
1. a woman who is refined, polite, and well-spoken: She may be poor and have little education, but she's a real lady.

2. a woman of high social position or economic class: She was born a lady and found it hard to adjust to her reduced circumstances.

3. any woman; female (sometimes used in combination): the lady who answered the phone; a saleslady.

4. (Used in direct address: often offensive in the singular): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Lady, out of my way, please.

5. wife: The ambassador and his lady arrived late.

6. Slang. a female lover or steady companion.

7. (initial capital letter) (in Great Britain) the proper title of any woman whose husband is higher in rank than baronet or knight, or who is the daughter of a nobleman not lower than an earl (although the title is given by courtesy also to the wives of baronets and knights).

8. a woman who has proprietary rights or authority, as over a manor; female feudal superior. Compare lord (def. 4).

9. (initial capital letter) the Virgin Mary.

10. a woman who is the object of chivalrous devotion.

11. (usually initial capital letter) a. an attribute or abstraction personified as a woman; a designation of an allegorical figure as feminine: Lady Fortune; Lady Virtue.
b. a title prefixed to the name of a goddess: Lady Venus.

–adjective 12. Sometimes Offensive. being a lady; female: a lady reporter.
13. of a lady; ladylike; feminine.


Thought you might want to read that. ;3

Pretty much anyone under that definition could have slept around and still be considered a lady.

PhotonDrop
May 9, 2007, 01:58 PM
On 2007-05-08 17:00, omegapirate2k wrote:
So, its clear you didn't see what you did there.


Of course I did, though found it humorous, which that expression doesn't portray. >.>

omegapirate2k
May 9, 2007, 02:00 PM
On 2007-05-09 11:58, PhotonDrop wrote:

On 2007-05-08 17:00, omegapirate2k wrote:
So, its clear you didn't see what you did there.


Of course I did, though found it humorous, which that expression doesn't portray. >.>



http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/c3922e57/i_see_what_you_did_there.jpg

SStrikerR
May 9, 2007, 07:08 PM
On 2007-04-26 14:06, DurakkenX wrote:
So recently some people have been being irritated at my "self-righteousness" and have ask "why is he such a dick?"

Now, I can understand where you are coming from when you ask this question or make this statement, but the thing is I am no more of you than to maintain a basic standard of intelligence.

When you ask a question that is asked, not once, but more than several times and even have a sticky with it, I think you should have enough intelligence to find this without having to waste time or space making a topic. If you can not then you should kicked in the head till you can. I am asking no more of you than to display that you have a higher intelligence than a 5 year old, which most of you are older than.

But Durakken don't you think you should be at least a little civil? No. You are insulting mine and other people by asking a question that we have already answered. You are asking us to waste more of our time so that you don't have to do a basic thing. You are not being civil in your actions and so I will not be in my response.

What about those who are slow? Well, you know it takes the same skills to find this website and it does to find a topic on it. If you have a problem understanding something within that topic then by all means ask upon that point, but not for "where" the topic is or anything that is clearly explained in the topic. There is a difference between needing someone to more deeply or more simply explain something and just asking the same thing again.

I am not mean, cruel, self-righteous, or any other thing that most people say. I am simply holding you to a standard that the education system, your parents, or culture have not for some odd reason.

so, how do you escape being berated by me?
#1. If you have something to say back it up or shut it.
#2. If you have something to ask, ask the search button it first.
#3. Actually read what is said and not skim it if you are going to reply.
#4. Give me pizza >.> and Rock & Rye pop.

Follow these rules, which are basic common decency of forum rules...I'm not asking much and I think those who don't hold you to these standards are doing you a much greater disservice that I ever do by being mean to you.

last six words of the first line state my question